“Critically compare the majority and the minority judgments in the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel”, before the International Court of Justice,- on three critical points.
The majority and minority judgments in the "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" case before the International Court of Justice differ on several critical points:
1. Definition of Genocide:
The majority judgment in this case focused on the definition of genocide as outlined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which includes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The majority emphasized the importance of proving the specific intent to commit genocide in order to establish liability. On the other hand, the minority judgment took a more expansive view of genocide, arguing that the destruction of a group does not necessarily have to be physical and can include the destruction of the group's way of life, culture, and identity.
2. Responsibility of State Actors:
The majority judgment held that for a state to be held responsible for genocide, it must be proven that the state itself, or individuals acting on behalf of the state, committed the prohibited acts with the intent to destroy a protected group. The majority emphasized the principle of state responsibility and the obligation of states to prevent and punish genocide within their jurisdiction. In contrast, the minority judgment argued that non-state actors, such as armed groups or militias, can also be held responsible for genocide if they commit the prohibited acts with the intent to destroy a protected group and the state fails to prevent or punish such acts.
3. Application of International Law:
The majority judgment in this case applied a strict interpretation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and emphasized the importance of proving intent and causation in establishing genocide. The majority also underscored the importance of state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states. In contrast, the minority judgment took a more expansive view of international law and argued that the prohibition against genocide is a jus cogens norm that binds all states, regardless of their consent. The minority also emphasized the importance of holding states accountable for their actions and ensuring justice for victims of genocide.
Overall, the majority and minority judgments in the "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip-South Africa v Israel" case differ on the interpretation of key legal principles, including the definition of genocide, the responsibility of state actors, and the application of international law. These differences reflect broader debates within the international legal community about the scope and enforcement of international humanitarian law.